SURINDER SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 575 · Decided: 30-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
-~ 
SURINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 2007 
[A.K. MA THUR AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law: 
Selection-Preferential qualification-Ambit and Scope of-Department c 
of Posts-Extra Departmental Delivery Agent-Qualification-8th Standard 
with preference to be given to Matriculation qualification-Candidate securing 
more marks in Matriculation, appointed-Appointment held valid-
Government of India-Ministry of Communication-Department of Posts-
Circular dated 12.3.1993--Clause 2(iv)-Directorate of Post Offices-Letter 
No. 19-17197-ED and Trg. Dated 21.11.1997. 
D 
_.. 
""" 
The appellant was selected through an open selection and was appointed 
as an Extra-Departmental Delivery Agent (EDDA). Respondent no. 4 challenged 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal the appointment of the appellant, 
inter alia, on the ground that as per the Government of India, Ministry of 
Communication, Department of Posts, Circular dated 12.3.1993, the minimum E 
qualification for the post was 8th standard and as he had secured more marks 
in 8th standard tban the appellant, the latter could not have been selected on 
the basis of preferential qualification. The case of the appellant was that as 
per the Circular dated 12.3.1993 the minimum qualification was 8th standard 
... 
with preference to the candidates having Matriculation qualification. He F 
-1 
further submitted that the Directorate of Post Offices by letter No. 19-17/97-
ED and Trg. Dated 21.11.1997 decided that the merit of candidates should be 
prepared on the basis of marks obtained in preferential qualification, i.e. 
Matriculation, if such candidates were available, and since the appellant had 
secured 55.8% marks in Matriculation as against 41 % obtained by 
respondent no. 4 the latter had no case. The Tribunal quashed the appointment G 
~ 
of the appellant and directed the Department to hold a fresh selection. The 
~ 
Writ petition of the appellant having been dismissed by the High Court in 
limine, he filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
575 
H 
576 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The Selection of the appellant has been made by the Selection 
Committee strictly in accordance with the latest Guidelines/Norms/ 
Instructions framed by the Department from time to time. The CAT as well 
as the High Court, both have lost sight of the object and import of the 
Guidelines/Norms/Instruction dated 22.07.1998 laid down by the Competent 
B Authority. The CAT is not competent to lay down criteria for the selection 
and appointment to the post of EDDA. It is the prerogative and authority of 
the employer to lay down suitable service conditions to the respective posts. 
Sub-Clause (iv) of Clause 2 of the Guidelines/Norms/Instructions dated 
:i. 
12.3.1993 puts a limit with respect to preferential qualification by way of a 
clear stipulation that no preference should be given to the qualification above 
C Matriculation. Hence, the preferential qualification was considered to be more 
effective and efficient and also it was a clear assumption that a candidate 
possessing the same is best suited for the post in question. 
[Para 16 and 17) [580-G-H; 581-A-E] 
1.2. In service jurisprudence, prescription of preferential qualification 
D not only refers to numeric superiority but is essentially related to better 
mental capacity, ability and maturity to shoulder the responsibilities, which 
are entrusted to the candidates after their selection to a particular post. All 
the more, it is important for efficient and effective administration. The basic 
object of prescribing a minimum qualification is to put a cut off level for a 
E particular job in accordance with the minimum competency required for the 
performance of that job. The object of prescribing preferential qualification 
is to select the best amongest the better candidates who possess more 
competence than the others. [Para 17] [581-A-C] 
Government of Andhra Pradesh v. P. Dilip Kumar and Anr., [1993] 2 
p sec 310, relied on. 
· 
G 
1.3. The order of the High Court maintaining the order of the CAT is 
set aside. [Para 13) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 143 of 200 I. 
From the Final Judgment and Order dated 27.09.2000 of the High Court 
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in Writ petition No. 13230-CAT of 2000. 
S.K. Bansal, Savitri Bansal and Harbans Lal Bajaj for the Appellant. 
T.S. Doabia, Sandeep Singh, P. Parmeswaran and K.K.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.